> From: "Geo." 
> "Tony Ingenoso"  wrote in message
> news:403c65d9{at}w3.nls.net...
>> A W2K that had some serious swap tuning work done to cut down slow laptop
> drive accesses could have a lot of appeal in certain
>> quarters.  XP is obviously the wrong answer for most laptops
> I can't think of anyone who wouldn't go for a faster version with minimal
> new features added. Even the guy who buys the fastest hardware, is still
> driven by the need for speed...
> In the rush to 32bit computing and then the Y2K thing, ISV's have gotten
> lost thinking users want "New and Improved" versions all the
time, we were
> upgrading for valid reasons not because we didn't like where we were. It
> would be nice to not change the look for once and just make it more perfect.
> The only thing is, I don't want to see that happen with XP and it's cartoon
> interface and take my commands as suggestions attitude. I want to see it
> happen with W2K.


Hey it's happening with the linux kernel 2.4 > 2.6.....

I was doing some tests & indeed there are bunch on the net & 2.6 is
noticeably faster.

What's nice is that the upgrade is just a kernel compilation away .

Well actually in my case it was also necessary to go to:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1.0-5336.html
Coz I have an nvidia vid card.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5